FXTM Account Types & How to Open

When we set out to review the account structure at FXTM — the brand operating under ForexTime Limited, registered in Cyprus on 14 April 2023 — we expected to find a familiar menu of retail trading accounts. Instead, our research surfaced a broker whose public footprint is almost entirely absent. The official domain, fxtm-ins.com, is not verifiable in any meaningful way, and the company lists zero employees in our records. In FXCanary's assessment, this is not the kind of foundation on which a trader should build an account strategy.

That said, we have to be scrupulously fair: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But for a broker that claims three regulatory licences — from CySEC, the FCA and the FSCA — the lack of any accessible account documentation, live chat, or even a functioning website is a glaring red flag. Our independent review found no verifiable account types, no minimum deposit figures, and no spread or commission data that we could confirm from our own records. We will therefore walk you through what the regulatory framework implies, what the absence of disclosure means in practice, and how a cautious trader should approach the prospect of opening an account here.

ForexTime Limited holds three licences on file, and we quote them exactly as they appear in our records. Under CySEC, the firm is authorised as a Market Making (MM) firm with licence number 185/12, operating in Cyprus. Under the FCA, it holds a Forex Execution License (STP) with licence number 777911, covering the United Kingdom. Under the FSCA, it holds a Derivatives Trading License (EP) with licence number 46614, covering South Africa. These are significant authorisations — if they are genuine and current.

In a normal broker review, we would explain how each licence shapes your account: a CySEC-regulated account would typically fall under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) product intervention measures, which cap retail leverage at 30:1 for major forex pairs and prohibit binary options. An FCA-regulated account would similarly be bound by UK leverage caps. An FSCA-regulated account, by contrast, could offer higher leverage, sometimes up to 1:500 or more, because South African regulations are less restrictive. However, we cannot confirm that any of these licences are actually active or that they apply to the accounts you would open on fxtm-ins.com. Our records show the status of each licence as a dash — not 'active', not 'revoked', just unknown.

We searched our records and the public web for a list of FXTM account types — Standard, Cent, ECN, Islamic, demo — and found nothing that we could attribute with confidence to this specific entity. The web results we encountered often described a different broker with a similar name, which is a common problem with obscure firms. We therefore cannot state with any certainty what account tiers ForexTime Limited offers, what the minimum deposit is, or what the spread structure looks like.

In the absence of official documentation, we can only reason from the regulatory licences. A Market Making licence under CySEC suggests the broker may offer standard retail accounts with variable spreads, possibly with a dealing desk. An STP licence under the FCA suggests a straight-through-processing model, which typically means raw spreads with a commission.

An EP licence under the FSCA suggests an electronic platform provider, which could accommodate both market making and STP models. But these are inferences, not facts. In FXCanary's assessment, a trader should treat any account type advertised on the site as unverified until the broker publishes clear terms and conditions that match the licences.

We do not have a minimum deposit figure for FXTM in our records, and we will not import one from the web results, because those results may refer to a different entity. Similarly, we have no confirmed leverage figures. If the broker is indeed regulated by CySEC and the FCA, retail leverage would be capped at 30:1 for major pairs under ESMA rules, but we cannot confirm that those caps apply to the accounts offered on fxtm-ins.com. For the FSCA licence, leverage could be higher, but again, we have no official documentation.

This lack of disclosure is itself a critical finding. A legitimate broker, especially one claiming three major licences, would publish its account specifications prominently. The fact that we cannot find them — and that the official domain appears to be non-functional — suggests that the account opening process may be either non-existent or deliberately opaque. In our experience, this is a hallmark of a clone or impersonator operation, and our risk score of 85/100 reflects that concern.

We have no verifiable data on spreads or commissions for FXTM. The web results we reviewed did not provide consistent figures, and we refuse to guess. In a typical broker review, we would compare the spread on EUR/USD, the commission per lot, and the swap rates. Here, we can only say that the cost structure is unknown, which is a major obstacle for any trader trying to assess the viability of the account.

If the broker operates under an STP model, you might expect raw spreads with a commission, but we cannot confirm that. If it operates under a Market Making model, you might expect wider spreads with no commission, but again, we cannot confirm that. The absence of a published cost schedule is a red flag, because it prevents traders from making an informed decision. In our assessment, any trader who is asked to deposit funds without seeing a clear cost structure should walk away.

We found no evidence that FXTM offers any specific trading platform, such as MetaTrader 4 or 5, cTrader, or a proprietary web platform. Nor did we find any mention of a demo account. For a broker that claims to be regulated in three jurisdictions, this is extraordinary. A demo account is a standard offering for any legitimate broker, allowing traders to test the platform and the broker's execution without risking capital.

The absence of a demo account is particularly concerning because it suggests that the broker may not have a functioning trading environment at all. In our review, we could not verify the existence of a live trading platform, and we could not find any user testimonials or independent reviews to confirm that the broker actually executes trades. This is consistent with the risk flags in our records, which list FXTM as a 'Fake Broker' in industry watchdog records and as a clone or impersonator firm.

We could not verify the account opening process for FXTM. There is no accessible website, no online application form, and no customer support contact that we could confirm. In a legitimate broker, the account opening process typically involves submitting proof of identity and address, completing a suitability questionnaire, and agreeing to the terms and conditions. The KYC process is designed to protect both the trader and the broker from fraud and money laundering.

Given the lack of a verifiable website, we strongly advise against submitting any personal documents or financial information to this entity. If you are contacted by someone claiming to represent FXTM, treat it as a potential phishing attempt. In our assessment, the absence of a transparent KYC process is not just an inconvenience; it is a sign that the operation may be fraudulent. We recommend that traders only open accounts with brokers that have a clear, verifiable online presence and a documented KYC procedure.

In FXCanary's assessment, the answer is a clear no. The combination of a non-functional website, zero employees, and a 'Fake Broker' flag in industry watchdog records makes this one of the highest-risk entities we have reviewed. The three licences on file — CySEC 185/12, FCA 777911, and FSCA 46614 — are impressive on paper, but we could not verify their status, and the lack of any public-facing documentation suggests they may be used without authorisation.

If you are considering an account with FXTM, we urge you to first check the public registers of CySEC, the FCA, and the FSCA to confirm that the licences are active and that they correspond to the entity you are dealing with. Even if they are, the absence of a transparent account offering is a deal-breaker. There are many well-regulated brokers with clear account structures, published costs, and functioning platforms. In our view, there is no reason to take a chance on an entity that cannot even provide a working website.